Do you really own your AGE's and other government issued bullion??

This may be a bit "TIN FOIL" but lets say you have a copper penny and you want to melt it, but you cant because its illegal then who really owns it? What gives the government the right to restrict that? Is it because it has a monetary value? So does this mean that the government can restrict anything with a monetary value? Can the government force you to turn them in based on that? What rights does the government have over monetized coins?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

There's a lot of information available to you on these topics and a lot of of reading that you could do to answer your own questions before posting threads full of questions like this. What makes you think you will receive clear, concise and understandable and unbiased answers on such a forum about such a topic? Don't just take other peoples word for it.

 

The US government can do anything, and I mean anything, it so pleases.

There is a little line in the Constitution that says the Feds can do anything "for the general welfare".
I hate that line. I think it is FAR too broad a statement that will be used more and more to get around Constitutional boundaries set for the Feds. It really is kinda silly... you have this document that goes on and on about limits to governmental power, but then quietly adds a tiny statement erasing all the limits it just outlined. Any lawyer can twist those couple words to give the Feds unlimited power.

 

Do you often make posts that someone else shouldn't have bothered making a post?
With a post count of 12,000+ seems likely.
Did you ever think that the original poster just strives to have a high post count too?
All 12,000+ of your posts were purely warranted and not here just taking up space?

 

ratio411, as far as I can tell, all of your posts are political. I think CoinTalk is the wrong forum for you. Please take it someplace else.

 

Firstly, Welcome to CT. I see you are new here and I haven't had the pleasure of welcoming you yet. :smile :thumb:

And to the point of your pointless post... Perhaps you ought to read some of my 12k posts if indeed post count is what matters so much to your prescience here. I highly doubt that you have read (which is what afflicts the OP as well) and are, in as much, incapable of the uninformed retort you dished out. Post counts on CT are pointless and not the point of my reply to the OP. Get the point of the previous post before you try to raise one that wasn't even there to begin with.

 

I for one do admit that not all of Krispy's posts are warranted but no ones are.
I also contend that Krispy post tons of good concise reply's to questions that have been asked again and again and usually with links to sites to help them learn more.

And I too welcome you ratio411 to CT.

 

Luke,

Interesting question. At first blush, my response would be that because we are on a fiat system, the currency we use, generally (by intent) has less value than face. That is, a quarter is "worth" a quarter because the US government says it is, not because it has .25 worth of metal in it. Pre-1982 cents (and nickels) are different. They actually are worth more than face value because of metal content.

The government has a keen interest in keeping our currency fiat. You can manipulate and inflate fiat currency. Metal costs what it costs.

I think that's the reasoning behind Waxman and Wiener holding congressional hearings regarding gold sales. The last thing they want is more people buying gold. They can't manipulate and inflate gold like they can worthless paper. If they can't manipulate the currency, they can't fund their wars and welfare programs. Inflation is the silent tax. We've made a deal with the devil.


Thanks for your post.

 

I look at it like the same rules that apply to our flag, you can own a flag but by law you are required to take care of it in a certain fashion, as it should be!

 

There is no such law.

 

playin, what country are you posting from?

 

Krispy,
My post was somewhat 'tongue in cheek'.
While I was pointing out a valid observation, I did have a chuckle going on when I typed it.
Perhaps I should have softend the words with a wink or smilie...

I have been lurking long enough to read your posts, as they are plentiful , and know that you are a serious and learned member here. However, I have also read some that were 'less than strictly constructive'... and I was just pointing that out to you so maybe you'd give the OP a break.

Cloudsweeper99:
I have been collecting coins since I was 8 years old (33 years ago), and the hobby was passed down from generations before me.
I am here as a collector.
I cannot help that some posts with a political slant bring out those passions in me.
I see it as civic duty to question those that would trample our freedoms, one being this hobby, and those are the posts you have read.

 

Exactly how I feel, but lack the eloquence to put into words.
Thank you Tommy.

Here is food for thought:

No state shall emit bills of credit, make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts, coin money . . . - US Constitution, Article 1, Section 10​

 

I don't think there is even a 1% chance of the hobby being in danger. There are a number of internet gold gurus who make a living selling articles to strike fear in gold and silver owners. They are best ignored.

 

Smiley icons go a long way on forums in place of in person communication. It's of no help to say you have been lurking and were so predisposed to know as much as you claim to have read only after the fact. There's nothing to prove/disprove it so it's of no consequence. Lurking is as if you didn't exist here at all and it lends no credibility for your lack of prior transparency. Had you been reading as much as you mentioned, then you would have also read the many prior threads and posts by the OP, and perhaps understood why I replied to HIM in the manner I had to begin with. :thumb:


Objectivity is an imperative when it comes to 'civic duty'. "The law is reason free of passion" -Aristotle

 

I agree totally with this statement.
I think there is a 'gold bubble' and for the most part it was manufactured by those folks.
I laugh when I see commercials telling you to "buy low and sell high". All I can think is 'Where were these commercials in the 1990s?'... These folks were buying the gold they are trying to sell now while the price is so high! We are not so far apart as you might think. I agree with most of what you have posted. I also agree that the "hobby" is not in much peril... but I do think that collections with large amounts of silver/gold content, or bullion coins are potential targets. Not that I have anything special... but those that do should still be protected.

 

On that we will have to disagree. Gold has none of the characteristics of a bubble. There is no widespread public ownership, no buying panic, no general feeling that gold is a "can't miss" investment without downside risk of any kind, and no heavy buying on leverage. Gold is in the middle stages of a bull market. Nothing more. I think it might get to the bubble stage, and when CNBC starts a Saturday morning commodity show and brings in goldbugs to espouse the benefits of owning gold, it will be time to sell. Remember CNBC's "Tech Tuesday" broadcasts in the late 90s? If they start "Metal Monday" shows, it's probably a bubble.

 

That's funny

 

yes... yes I do

for these two primary reasons... based on timeline

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coinage_Act_of_1965

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_Shock

Bullion, in this case legal tender is very rarely circulatied based on the fact that the face value is symbolic.
Gov't as they do can always pass laws to make it other wise.

As it stands for now, if one holds their metals and do not hold paper metals or have them stored in a SDB or PM storage facility, they own it.

 

Yes, and the government still follows this clause of the Constitution. It's still in the Constitution and thus new laws are subject to rulings by the Supreme Court based on this clause. While it is true the Congress can pass any law it wants, the law can also be declared unconstitutional by the supremes and that will be the end of that.

What has to be understood, and most times isn't, is this clause in the Constitution is exactly why the Federal Reserve was created and eventually given monopoly over the the currency via the legal tender laws. The Federal Reserve, though created by Congress, is an private corporation with shares of stock owned by it's member banks. (these shares are not traded). In return for being granted its monopoly over the currency the President and Senate get to choose its head guy.

So what does the Federal Reserve have to do with the Constitution? Since the Federal Reserve is a private company, the notes that it issues, i.e. The Federal Reserve Note otherwise known as the dollar, is a contract between the holder (you) and the Federal Reserve bank that issued it. It is not an obligation of the US government. Therefore, since the US government did not issue the FRN, it is not bound by the restrictions of the Constitution concerning gold and silver coins. In fact since it is a private contract, this leaves the Congress free to regulate it with any legislation including taxes and this is why, not co-incidentally, the IRS was formed when the Federal Reserve was formed. People, for the most part, accepted the creation of these two institutions at first because, 1. the federal reserve dollar was initially setup as an alternative to US currency, and 2. nobody paid income taxes at first. Now several generations later, the federal reserve dollar is the only dollar allowed and almost everyone is subject to reporting for income taxes.

So what about coins and the OP's question. In the case of AGEs and ASEs, the issue has never been properly adjudicated in the courts. The coinage act of 1965 (also not adjudicated) does not apply because these coins were not mandated by congress until 1986. Initially it was Ron Paul that wanted the government to start issuing PM coins again as a way for people to get out of the Federal Reserve system. The AGE/ASE legislation was the only significant bill that he has gotten passed in the congress. A very enthusastic Reagan signed this into law as the idea suited his brand of conservatism. However Paul was not in office when the act was passed and one of the minions of the FR slipped in a provision that put legal tender status on the coins. When that happened, it put the coins in a nebulous legal state. That is, are the coins issued by the US Mint (hence US government) or by the Federal Reserve? (Regular coins these days are produced by the Mint, but they do not take on value until issued by a Federal Reserve bank)

The distinction is very important in terms of the Constitution. If the coins are deemed to be issued by the Federal Government, then theoretically the government is constitutionally restricted to taxing transactions made with these coins to the face value of the coin or to it's official valuation of gold (currently $42/OZ). If it is deemed to be issued by the FR, then the value of the coin is it's intrinsic value in term of federal reserve notes and subjection to taxation at the much higher rate. It's a legal paradox that has yet to be decided though there is a case, if they decide to let the courts have it, that could decide the issue.

In that case, there was a guy who owned a business, who paid his employees with AGEs. When reporting taxes they reported $50 income instead of the FRN value of the coin. His argument was that made above. This could not be allowed to stand, so the IRS, along with the full force of the government police force, raided his business, charged him will all kinds of tax fraud and initially tossed him in jail. I am not sure where it currently stands except to say that what should happen is for a competent lawyer to take the case and challenge the IRS's moves as being un-Constitutional. This part hasn't happened which brings in all the suspicions that I alluded to as they (the FR and goverment) don't want to go to the courts.